Talk:Blockhead (computer system)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Isn't it true that a sentence could theoretically be infinite in length?

- ProgressivePantheist

The article talks about "correct responses". There is no question which could have an infinitly long sentence as a "correct response". The computer would then be programmed to have enough correct responses to response to a limited number of sentences for a limited amount of time, making such a computer logically possible, since there is nothing infinite in all that. --SuperBleda 18:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


This is assuming that the conversation follows a logical progression, and that the entire conversation remain strictly grammatically correct, neither of which are certain to occur. Actually, there are a lot of logical falacies with this argument - I'll see if I can find records of other scientists who disagreed with Block, to try to make the article more balanced. Does anyone know anything about this?

No, it does not assume any rules for the scentences. You're just wronly assuming it would because you forgot that you also could add hash keys for all variations of all scentences, including all bad structured or even completely sensless ones. The argument still holds. Unfortunately you neither say what those logical falacies are that you think there are, nor do i find any one of them. And as you can see i'm good at logic. ;) (Ok, doesn't matter because it does not prove that my arguments are flawless. ;) -- 212.100.48.53 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Some links would be really appreciated. And a list of arguments proving the falacy would be even nicer... if there actually are ones. At least i find it perfectly clear and actually pretty simple, because correcly seen it only states: "There is a finite list of stuff you can say. And to pass the test there's a finite list of stuff you can answer. Thus limiting the whole conversation to a finite set of ways." So a simple hash of "question => {answers}" with a random generator choosing one of the answers out of the set for the matchin "question" would actually pass every turing test by definition. -- 212.100.48.53 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree that there are more possibilities for scentences than there are particles in the universe, when you exclude scentences from outside the universe. This is a simple following from the fact that you can't form a scentence more complex than the universe, as long as the universe includes the scentence. -- 212.100.48.53 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


I can't believe nobody added a complete section regarding the Blockheads in Gumby. This omission is a glaring black hole on the face of Wiki-knowledge.--Blockhead 23:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
What prevents dou from doing it yourself, when nobody else seems to know them. Besides i would appreciate to read what you wrote. :) -- 212.100.48.53 16:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


There is also an amazing hip hop producer on the Ninja Tune label named Blockhead. Check him out! www.ninjatune.net
Yup. He's found under Blockhead (disambiguation) or from there under Blockhead (music).
Off topic, but i recommend you listen to "You've got maelstroem" if you don't know him. Check out the www.bigbeats.ru radio station to hear the track very now and then. :) [just klick the link that looks like "listen to mp3". I'm geman so i don't understand a word of the page too. Got it from shoutcast. The music rules! ;] -- 212.100.48.53 16:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Ummm Hello?! Stephanie J. Block anyone?! Check HER out! She's so amazing and talented on and off the stage and has the most amazing fans in the world! They call themselves "blockheads," and that word sure does describe them perfectly!
http://www.stephaniejblock.com
If she matters in terms of the wikipadia rules (look 'em up to see), go add her yourself under "Blockheads" redirecting to "Stephanie J. Block". Thank you for your contribution. :)

[edit] Knowledge size vs. size of the universe

Although the number of sentences required for a 30 minute conversation is said to be greater than the number of particles in the universe, it is clear that such a machine could at least logically exist.

Well, if there are more sentences than particles in the universe, and since I don't know of any information storage system, or compression algorithm, which doesn't require at least one particle of the universe per sentence, then in my opinion it is most definitely not clear that such a machine can exist. To say the least. – Tintazul msg 21:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the number of sentences in any given language, it's quite possible for it to exceed the number of particles in the universe because a sentence is only a *possible* arrangement of particles. If you required all the sentences to be written down or uttered at the same time, it would be a different story. Consider that the number of possible arrangements of particles in the universe far exceeds the total number of those particles, or that the number of arrangements of pieces on a chess board is greater than 32.

On the other hand the above quote is uncited, uncitable and weaselly. If there's a better way of saying the same thing... Leushenko 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)